8
Test to the suppression results for the motor oil shown in
Table 3 leads to a p-value of 0.009 which indicates that
there is a statically significant relationship between the sup-
pression agents in suppressing the motor oil spray fire. The
suppression agents dry chemical and dual agent were bet-
ter at suppressing motor oil fires than were CO2 and water
mist.
CONCLUSIONS
The focus of this research was to determine the effectiveness
of five different fire suppressant agents to extinguish a fire
on mining mobile equipment caused by a spray fires of die-
sel fuel, engine motor oil, and hydraulic circulating oil. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the
fire suppression tests presented in this paper. The test results
suggest that the dry chemical-based system, including the
dual-agent system provide the best suppression effective-
ness for the conditions tested. The test results revealed that
there was no significant relationship between different sup-
pression agents in extinguishing the spray fires caused by
diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid except in the case of motor oil
spray fire where the relationship was statistically significant.
These results are only applicable to the studied test con-
ditions which is based on the fire not being 75% or more
enclosed. However, it is expected that the fire suppressing
agents will perform better under total system flooding con-
ditions where the fire is 75% or more enclosed.
LIMITATIONS
The results of evaluating the five different suppression sys-
tems used in this experimental research reflect scientific
data on fire suppression agent effectiveness under specific
conditions. No testing was conducted to evaluate any
health or environmental impacts of any of the agents used.
Furthermore, the research employed one nozzle design at
fixed locations for all tests and hence did not explore system
installation or optimization. The conclusions drawn from
this study speak to the performance of the limited number
of agents tested and should not be construed as an endorse-
ment nor a recommendation for use in similar scenarios.
DISCLAIMER
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official
position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mention of any company or product does not constitute an
endorsement by NIOSH.
REFERENCES
[1] MSHA [2018]. Report of investigation, fatal equip-
ment fire accident. United States Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.
September 7, 2018
[2] BETE PJ Impingement Nozzles |Fogging Nozzles
[3] Yuan, L., Thomas, R.A., Zhou, L. (2017).
Characterization of a mine fire using atmospheric
monitoring system sensor data. Mining Engineering,
69, 57–62.
[4] Egan, M.R. (1990). Summary of Combustion
Products From Mine Materials: Their Relevance to
Mine Fire Detection, Information Circular 9272,
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
[5] Fisher’s Exact Test: Definition, Formula, and Example
-Statology
Table 3. Overall suppression effectiveness results for motor
oil
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness,
%
CO2 2 0 0
Dry chemical 0 2 100
Dual agent 0 4 100
Water mist 2 0 0
Wet chemical 2 0 0
Table 4. Overall suppression effectiveness results for
hydraulic fluid
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness,
%
CO2 2 0 0
Dry chemical 0 2 100
Dual agent 1 3 75
Water mist 0 2 100
Wet chemical 2 0 0
Test to the suppression results for the motor oil shown in
Table 3 leads to a p-value of 0.009 which indicates that
there is a statically significant relationship between the sup-
pression agents in suppressing the motor oil spray fire. The
suppression agents dry chemical and dual agent were bet-
ter at suppressing motor oil fires than were CO2 and water
mist.
CONCLUSIONS
The focus of this research was to determine the effectiveness
of five different fire suppressant agents to extinguish a fire
on mining mobile equipment caused by a spray fires of die-
sel fuel, engine motor oil, and hydraulic circulating oil. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the
fire suppression tests presented in this paper. The test results
suggest that the dry chemical-based system, including the
dual-agent system provide the best suppression effective-
ness for the conditions tested. The test results revealed that
there was no significant relationship between different sup-
pression agents in extinguishing the spray fires caused by
diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid except in the case of motor oil
spray fire where the relationship was statistically significant.
These results are only applicable to the studied test con-
ditions which is based on the fire not being 75% or more
enclosed. However, it is expected that the fire suppressing
agents will perform better under total system flooding con-
ditions where the fire is 75% or more enclosed.
LIMITATIONS
The results of evaluating the five different suppression sys-
tems used in this experimental research reflect scientific
data on fire suppression agent effectiveness under specific
conditions. No testing was conducted to evaluate any
health or environmental impacts of any of the agents used.
Furthermore, the research employed one nozzle design at
fixed locations for all tests and hence did not explore system
installation or optimization. The conclusions drawn from
this study speak to the performance of the limited number
of agents tested and should not be construed as an endorse-
ment nor a recommendation for use in similar scenarios.
DISCLAIMER
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official
position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mention of any company or product does not constitute an
endorsement by NIOSH.
REFERENCES
[1] MSHA [2018]. Report of investigation, fatal equip-
ment fire accident. United States Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.
September 7, 2018
[2] BETE PJ Impingement Nozzles |Fogging Nozzles
[3] Yuan, L., Thomas, R.A., Zhou, L. (2017).
Characterization of a mine fire using atmospheric
monitoring system sensor data. Mining Engineering,
69, 57–62.
[4] Egan, M.R. (1990). Summary of Combustion
Products From Mine Materials: Their Relevance to
Mine Fire Detection, Information Circular 9272,
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
[5] Fisher’s Exact Test: Definition, Formula, and Example
-Statology
Table 3. Overall suppression effectiveness results for motor
oil
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness,
%
CO2 2 0 0
Dry chemical 0 2 100
Dual agent 0 4 100
Water mist 2 0 0
Wet chemical 2 0 0
Table 4. Overall suppression effectiveness results for
hydraulic fluid
Suppressant
Agent
Count
of not
Suppressed
Count of
Suppressed
Effectiveness,
%
CO2 2 0 0
Dry chemical 0 2 100
Dual agent 1 3 75
Water mist 0 2 100
Wet chemical 2 0 0